Are Brokers Employees Of The Company?

[BandB]

Originally Posted by ohdrinkboy

this also depends on the boat owner's contract with the broker. it may have given the broker the right to engage for work of a small amount. $1k can be small on a $1million boat. might be hard to get a copy of the contract. one of your friends in the business might know of someone who has sold a boat with this brokerage and would share a copy.

Actually it only partly does.

The terms of the broker agreement with the seller is not the issue for the vendor. Broker was agent and vendor can assume he was acting under that agency. Then if he acted outside that, the owner can sue him.

It's like business where you place dollar restrictions on what employees can purchase. If they exceed that, you still owe the vendor. It's not their job to police your employee.

[bsurvey]

you have a mechanics lien on the vessel. send them the 20 day notice form. that typically gets the situation resolved. a lien is fairly expensive so my next step would be to drag both of them into small claims court.
if they don't show up you win the judgment and an attorney will take it on a contingency. it will then cost them attorneys fees and court costs

[BandB]

Originally Posted by bsurvey

you have a mechanics lien on the vessel.

I doubt seriously that he does as he didn't perfect the lien in time.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by bsurvey

you have a mechanics lien on the vessel.

Originally Posted by BandB

I doubt seriously that he does as he didn't perfect the lien in time.

I do not have a lien on the boat. I did threaten to do so while the boat was under contract to be sold, but the salesman was telling me that this would all be worked out. I (at the time) assumed I would be paid and would want to do more business with the brokerage, and so decided to not throw a monkey wrench into the works. Live and learn, I guess.

Regarding contracts: They are not common in the boat maintenenace business; certainly not in the hull cleaning industry. In my experience, getting shafted by a customer is pretty rare. That said, in the future when a brokerage wants me to invoice the customer, I think some kind of written agreement involving all thre parties would be wise.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Regarding contracts: They are not common in the boat maintenenace business; certainly not in the hull cleaning industry. In my experience, getting shafted by a customer is pretty rare. That said, in the future when a brokerage wants me to invoice the customer, I think some kind of written agreement involving all thre parties would be wise.

I agree. I got shafted by a customer earlier this year and after much angst and consideration decided not to change my business practices.

I have a diver here in Annapolis that I think is great. She shows up on time, works fast, does a great job, provides underwater video of anything suspect, and is priced well. As a result she gets all my customer's work.

If a customer stiffs her I'll make it right. If that customer is a broker EVERYONE will know.

When people start asking that broker, and only that broker for deposits and payment up front, s/he'll know there is a problem. Karma is a *****.

[TrentePieds]

Why all the debate about something so simple? Whjen have you ever taken a consumer good (an appliance, a computer, anyuthing) into a dealer or "service location" for attention and NOT

[TrentePieds]

#36 continued:

to sign a Work Order (by whatever name it may be called), and very often required to leave a credit card imprint as a condition of service being undertaken?

No honest man having received a fair estimate of the repair/service costs would refuse to sign or leave his imprint.

We see time and again that purveyors of yacht services are stiffed for their fees and materials costs. NO business, when a potential customer walks as a result of objecting to SBP, is better than BAD business when the customer walks AFTER the srvice has been provided. Collection action while possible totally destroys the profit marging on the job.

IMO it is up to the service provider to cover his butt BEFORE he does the work.


TP

[BandB]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

#36 continued:

to sign a Work Order (by whatever name it may be called), and very often required to leave a credit card imprint as a condition of service being undertaken?

No honest man having received a fair estimate of the repair/service costs would refuse to sign or leave his imprint.

We see time and again that purveyors of yacht services are stiffed for their fees and materials costs. NO business, when a potential customer walks as a result of objecting to SBP, is better than BAD business when the customer walks AFTER the srvice has been provided. Collection action while possible totally destroys the profit marging on the job.

IMO it is up to the service provider to cover his butt BEFORE he does the work.


TP

It's so much easier today. I can understand not always getting contracts when it had to be done by phone or even fax. However, email is the salvation today. You create standard forms and when it's not the owner, you have a clause that indicates the third party is responsible if the owner doesn't pay or at least something attesting to them having the authorization. You have an electronic signature by response to the email.

Now, in this case, the OP indicates a lot of email correspondence. Having not seen it, I can't speak as to how strong it was. However, if he had approval of work and price by email then he had a contract. If prices were not included or a maximum or range then it is far weaker. Now, you have the agreement over what is reasonable.

Now, in business and boating, I'm more often on the customer side and I won't work without written agreement to protect both sides and be sure there's no misunderstanding. That's especially important on a car or boat where the car can get a mechanic's lien and a boat can be arrested. Without writing, you can tell someone to do some work, thinking it's going to be $1,000, then they bill $3,000 and you must pay or you end up with a lien.

We all have email with us on our phones wherever we are. There is no excuse for not confirming things in writing. That's something else I often do. If I'm talking to you and you agree to do some work for me for x amount, then I will immediately email you saying in writing what we just agreed upon and asking you to confirm. Takes two minutes.

Something tells me there are several problems in the OP's situation.
1-Not adequate communication between broker and owner.
2-Not having a specific agreement by email confirming the work and prices and payment if owner didn't pay.
3-The email should have made clear payment was to be immediately upon receipt of invoice.
3-Waiting too long to pursue collection. It would have been so much easier before the sale.

[boatpoker]

I still have not seen anything to show that the broker even knew about this situation.
Maybe the buyer did it on their own

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by Capt Jerry

Not to cause a ruckus, but a lot of these posts are from people who don't know what they are talking about. Review my previous post. I am an attorney.

But are you an admiralty law attorney? If not, perhaps you are the one who does not know what they are talking about. Liens placed on boats for work done on boats are owed by the boat, which is a legal entity unto itself under admiralty law. It typically does not matter who the owner is. There have been many threads on this forum regarding the archaic and highly specialized area of admiralty law especially when it comes to liens.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

I still have not seen anything to show that the broker even knew about this situation.
Maybe the buyer did it on their own

Post #1 by the OP

Last year I was twice asked by a broker here in the Bay Area to clean the hull and replace the anodes on a 80' Hatteras that he had listed. The arrangement was that I would invoice the boat owner, not the brokerage.

Now he is referring to the salesman specifically.

[ValiantV]

Originally Posted by NCGunDude

If you don't get a prompt resolution to the matter, take all 3 of them to small claims court. It only costs a nominal amount to have each of them served.

Likely costs considerably more to file a small claim and serve than most people think. Depends on the rules of your state, but probably over $100 for each filing and likely a not-inconsequential fee for serving each respondent.

Did it once. Never again. Added insult to injury.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

I still have not seen anything to show that the broker even knew about this situation.
Maybe the buyer did it on their own

Sorry .... brain fart, I've been following two threads involving broker complaints and got them confused.

[TrentePieds]

Quote: "Liens placed on boats for work done on boats are owed by the boat, which is a legal entity unto itself under admiralty law."

Well, no! Not quite. As always, it depends. I assume (merely on the preponderance of numbers) that CaptBill is an American. I have no clue, which also seems to be true for most Americans, how American law works or doesn't work.

In this 'ere colony, a REGISTERED vessel is a legal entity - with some exceptions. A LICENSED vessel is a mere chattel, but that's rather irrelevant to the OP's plight. The long and the short of it seems to be that failure to attend to SBP, let alone Generally Accepted Accounting Principles has hung the OP out to dry.

Seems to me that for a claim involving a grand or two, the sensible thing to do is to avoid the money expense, and income lost due to the time taken, of an action even in a small claims tribunal, and just learn from the episode. The lost revenue is merely a tuition expense. Even "tax deductible", if you do it right, i.e. according to GAAP.

For a grand a competent accountant will give you a few minutes of his time to explain how it should be done, and even a few sample forms that you can put on your computer and use for Work Orders.

TP

[nautical62]

"the broker telling me that I would get paid, even if he had to write the check himself."

And that's the relevant bit. If the broker hired you, and promised to pay you, your issue is with the broker, not the owner.